John Muir National Historic Site Expansion Act

Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority to live up to its professed support for the principles of federalism, limited government, and local control of local affairs by not interfering in the local laws of the District of Columbia. The bill limits the District's authority over its local marijuana laws, and prohibits D.C. from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women.

I am here to put on the record that the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee's stated view that the bill's D.C. marijuana rider blocks the D.C. marijuana legalization initiative from taking effect is not the view of the entire House, as well as to preserve the ability of the District and its lawyers to review, analyze and interpret the rider's effect for themselves.

Based on a plain reading of the bill and principles of statutory interpretation, it is arguable that the rider does not block D.C. from carrying out its marijuana legalization initiative. The House-passed D.C. marijuana rider, introduced by Representative Andy Harris, and this bill's D.C. marijuana rider are not identical. Unlike the Harris rider, this bill's rider does not block D.C. from ``carrying out'' enacted marijuana policies. D.C.'s Initiative 71, it can be argued, was enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November and is self-executing--i.e., it did not require enactment of any rules for its implementation. Therefore, it can be argued that the legalization of small amounts of marijuana in D.C. can proceed.

The District legalized marijuana primarily to combat racial injustice, after two independent studies, one by the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital and the other by the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, found shocking racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana laws in D.C. In D.C., Whites and Blacks use marijuana at the same rates, and Blacks compromise slightly less than 50% of the population, but Blacks are eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than non-Blacks, and 91% of all marijuana arrests are of Blacks. These disparities exist in urban areas throughout the country.

Arrests and convictions for marijuana possession ruin lives, especially those of Black males. An arrest or conviction for marijuana possession often condemns Blacks, particularly those from low-income neighborhoods, to joblessness. Losing the ability to find legitimate work can lead a person to the underground economy, even to selling drugs, rather than mere possession. The Black community itself pays the price because men without the prospect of employment often do not form stable families.

There may be some misconceptions about the District's legalization law. The District has the narrowest and strictest marijuana legalization law in the country. D.C. will not become a regional or national haven for marijuana use or transactions. Unlike D.C., the four states that have legalized marijuana permit the sale and purchase of marijuana. Under D.C.'s marijuana legalization law, possession and home cultivation are permitted, but all the following are not permitted: sales or purchase, retail stores, smoking in public, and possession by those under 21 years of age.

The bill also blocks the District from spending its local funds to provide abortion services for low-income women. We are talking about

100% local D.C. funds, not federal funds. D.C. raises almost $7 billion per year in local funds through taxes and fees. As with marijuana, the District is being singled out for unfair treatment. Seventeen states, including Arizona, Alaska, and West Virginia, spend their local funds on abortion services for low-income women. The bill does not block them from doing so. When the D.C. abortion rider was re-imposed in April 2011, many low-income D.C. women had to immediately cancel their scheduled appointments for reproductive health services, because, unlike wealthier D.C. women, they relied on D.C. to pay for their health care services.

I urge Congress to respect the local laws of the 650,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a very distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee who is planning to retire. We will miss him greatly, and we wish him good luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our most important responsibility is to fund government operations. This bill does that, but it also contains a number of objectionable items that have no place in a spending bill.

I would like to thank Jim Moran, Ed Pastor, Bill Owens, Frank Wolf, Tom Latham, and Jack Kingston. Your friendship and expertise will be missed.

I am pleased that, after weeks of negotiations, we have a package that funds 11 of the 12 bills. I hope that in the next Congress we avoid such a contentious process and pass bills we are proud to support under regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert the President's statement in support of this bill in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this bill, and I urge your support.

I yield back the balance of my time..

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 83--Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015

(Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Dec. 11, 2014)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 83,

making appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2015, and for

other purposes. The Administration appreciates the bipartisan

effort to include full-year appropriations legislation for

most Government functions that allows for planning and

provides certainty, while making progress toward

appropriately investing in economic growth and opportunity,

and adequately funding national security requirements. The

Administration also appreciates the authorities and funding

provided to enhance the U.S. Government's response to the

Ebola epidemic, and to implement the Administration's

strategy to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,

as well as investments for the President's early education

agenda, Pell Grants, the bipartisan, Manufacturing Institutes

initiative, and extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance

program.

However, the Administration objects to the inclusion of

ideological and special interest riders in the House bill. In

particular, the Administration is opposed to the inclusion of

a rider that would amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

and Consumer Protection Act and weaken a critical component

of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

Additionally, the Administration is opposed to inclusion of a

rider that would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to

allow individual donors to contribute to national political

party committee accounts for conventions, buildings and

recounts in amounts that are dramatically higher than what

the law currently permits.

Furthermore, the Administration is disappointed that the

bill would fund the Department of Homeland Security through

February 27, 2015, at last year's levels. Short-term

continuing resolution funding measures are disruptive, create

uncertainty, and impede efficient resource planning and

execution.

The Administration urges the Congress to enact

comprehensive full-year appropriations legislation for all

Government functions free of provisions that have no place in

annual appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of Division N, Section 101 is to establish separate limits for funds raised into separate, segregated accounts established by national political party committees for certain specified purposes. All of these funds are ``hard money'' subject to all of the source limitations, prohibitions, and disclosure provisions of the Act.

The first account, described in section 315(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (``FECA'') (as amended), is intended to allow a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee) to defray expenses related to a presidential nominating convention using funds raised under separate, increased limits. Section 315(a)(9)(A) also caps the aggregate amount of expenditures a national political party committee may make from such account with respect to any convention at $20,000,000. This section is intended to provide national political party committees with a means of acquiring additional resources to be used specifically in connection with the funding of presidential nominating conventions because such conventions may no longer be paid for with public funds. It is the intent to allow these funds to be used in the same manner as the former public funds could have been used, as well as to pay for the costs of fundraising for this segregated account.

The second account, described in section 315(a)(9)(B) of FECA (as amended), is intended to permit a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation and furnishing of party headquarters buildings located throughout the United States, including the cost of fundraising for this segregated account, using funds raised under separate, increased limits. Funds in these accounts also may be used to repay loans and other obligations incurred for the purpose of defraying such building expenses, including loans and obligations incurred two years before the date of the enactment of this Act.

The third account, described in section 315(a)(9)(C) of FECA (as amended), is intended to permit a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings, including the costs of fundraising for this segregated account, using funds raised under a separate limit Section 101 of Division N is not intended to modify Federal Election Commission precedent permitting the raising and spending of funds by campaign or state or national party committees. See FEC Advisory Opinions 2006-24, 2009-4. Section 101 is also intended to permit the national parties to use such funds for costs, fees, and disbursements associated with other legal proceedings.

Finally, under current law coordinated limits do not apply even absent these provisions to the existing accounts as described in section 315 of FECA and therefore it is the intent of the amendments contained herein that expenditures made from the accounts described in section 315(a)(9) of FECA, many of which (such as recount and legal proceeding expenses) are not for the purpose of influencing federal elections, do not count against the coordinated party expenditure limits described in section 315(d) of FECA.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. It has been subject to negotiations that didn't end until just a couple of weeks ago, and fortunately, we have this time for Congress to consider it. It is a very simple bill that will greatly benefit our national park system by expanding the John Muir National Historic Site in my congressional district in Martinez at no cost to the Federal Government.

The Muir Historic Site is a terrific resource for people living in and visiting the bay area. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people come to the historic site every year. Schoolchildren visit it on a regular basis, and certainly visitors from Scotland come to the site to learn about this rather remarkable native of Scotland who stirred up so much activity in the United States.

As Ranking Member DeFazio pointed out, he was absolutely key to the founding and existence of Yosemite National Park and Sequoia National Park. In fact, he left his home site that is part of this park and walked to the Sierras to explore the Sierras and to live in them and to write about them. Some of his most famous books were written on those journeys.

This land, what we know locally as the Plummer Ranch, is contiguous to the John Muir National Historic Site. It was once part of a ranch owned by John Swett. John Swett was a very close friend of John Muir. There are many historic pictures of them together. John Swett was, in fact, the father of the California public school system. They spent a great deal of time in this area, both farming, farming fruit and grapes and other agricultural products, and were very close friends. So this donation by the Muir Heritage Land Trust to the Federal Government, if we accept it, will bring these two pillars of California's history together, linking the physical connectedness of their ranches. It will connect this area to Mount Wanda, which was named after John Muir's daughter. He used to have orchards at the top and side of Mount Wanda.

So this is really a win-win for the historic community, and it is a win-win for this historic site which is visited by so many people. It is a win for the taxpayers since the money was raised locally to purchase this land from the original owner and to provide it in donation to the National Park Service. With the passage of this bill, that transaction will be completed. It will expand this park. The Nation will have the benefit of this additional historic asset to the site for people to visit and to understand.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for making time for this legislation in his committee's jurisdiction and deliberations, and my good friend Peter DeFazio for allowing me to present this on the floor. Thank you so much to both of you.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey and their staffs put towards drafting legislation to fund the federal government. Sadly, I cannot support the finished product due to extraneous provisions that have no business being in an appropriations bill. These riders, included at the last minute with no debate and no input from Democratic members, circumvent the will of American voters, harm retirees, put taxpayer dollars at risk, and allow a privileged few to have even more influence over our elections.

These extraneous provisions have nothing to do with funding the government. Instead, they will cut benefits to seniors and roll back critical Dodd-Frank provisions to protect taxpayer dollars. They will also increase the amount of money that special interests, private corporations, and wealthy donors can spend on political conventions and other election activities, when we know that more money in politics is not the solution, it's the problem.

Rhode Islanders are still recovering from the financial crisis of 2008, and I cannot in vote for a return to the status quo, which helped bring about the crisis in the first place. The derivatives provision is a Christmas gift to big banks at the expense of American taxpayers. It would remove restrictions included in Dodd-Frank that prevent these banks from gambling with our constituents' money by using taxpayer- insured bank deposits in risky derivatives transactions.

I am greatly disappointed that I am not able to support what is in many other ways a solid bill. This legislation includes funding for important investments to our infrastructure, the National Institutes of Health, Ebola response efforts, spinal cord injury research, the peerless Virginia-class submarines, and so many other initiatives and programs that are critical to our national defense and our future as a nation--not to mention that it provides for the brave men and women in our armed services and intelligence community who are in harm's way even as we speak. Regrettably, these priorities were eclipsed by poisonous provisions that could greatly undermine the important work voters elected us to do--restore the economic certainty we need to keep our economy growing and our businesses hiring.

Mr. Speaker. I have supported numerous bipartisan efforts in the past to fund the government, and I know what can be accomplished when Democrats and Republicans sit down and negotiate in good faith. But the price Republicans are trying to exact this time is simply too high, and I will not sacrifice my principles and the interests of my constituents.